The Image Fakers

George Zimmerman (aka "Shooter" of Trayvon Martin) has received the green light of bail to get out of jail while the authorities shuffle judges to "try" his case of 2nd Degree Murder. You knew that already, right? What you may not have noticed is how demure he looked in court the other day wearing a suit at least two sizes too large for his now slimmed-down physique.

The visual impression is in contrast to the image of a wild-eyed brute who shot a teen carrying Skittles and ice tea with which to terrorize a neighborhood. Suddenly, here was a kind-looking fellow, almost fragile in that big suit, all dressed-up for church or something. It has been suggested that his suit had to be large to handle the bullet-proof vest he was supposedly wearing beneath his drapes. If so, then why do many politicians who must wear the same, look just fine in their suits? You know, as in the suit fits?

The primary point I want to make is not that Zimmerman can now roam free (in hiding, of course), but how attorney's have been playing the image card for years with their clients when in court. By now don't we all realize that the clothing, hairstyle and what-not is usually part of an act to provide both judge and jury the most angelic impression possible of the (often guilty) defendant?

What a joke! Do you recall how Casey Anthony, infamous probable daughter-killer, wore the sweetest little outfits in court? I'm surprised her lawyer didn't send her in front of the jury in quasi-Amish couture. No way were we to see the party girl side who loved to prance and dance 'til dawn while her daughter's body was buried nearby. She was acquitted. Perhaps not through her New Image, but presenting herself in conservative attire was enough to raise Nancy Grace's ire. (But then, what doesn't?)

A few of you may remember the Menendez Brothers trial in Los Angeles in the 90's. Oh, how Preppy-fied those boys were dressed! Soft sweaters, neat button-down shirt collars. I mean, how could such nice-looking All American Boys have killed their parents in "cold blood" for revenge and greed? Thankfully, the jury didn't buy it, but wow, it was quite a show!

And then there is the case of Barbara Stager, convicted of shooting her second husband, Russell Stager, in the late 80's. According to numerous TV movies and crime show investigations, this was one materialistic woman who could probably outshine Paris Hilton if only she had had an inheritance. Average in appearance, her knack for knowing how to use makeup and exceptional skills in bed lured men into some kind of mind-numbing bind.

The church-going lady couldn't live without designer clothes, jewels and men. And, unfortunately for two of them, they couldn't live once she tired of their company and feared potential discovery of her many deceits should they (once more) discover piles of her behind-their-backs spending receipts. (There are suspicions she may have shot and killed her first husband.)

In court, the lady who loved those nice clothes and blingy-thingy's dressed in "off-the-rack" dowdy, girlish blouses and dresses, almost sans makeup. Therefore, if you were sitting in the jury you may have wondered how the plain-looking cookie-baking mama could create so much drama. Fortunately, despite the Purist Image, the facts in the case were too strong to acquit because her glove DID fit. (As it were/was/always will be.)

Although not everyone who changes their image in court for sympathy or to play down The Devil Within goes free, it still amazes me how the game is repeated and how some people actually believe it. Of course we would want anyone who would represent us in a legal situation to do everything they can on our behalf, but it's a laugh and a half to watch the machinations unfold.

Or, as with the Zimmerman Big Suit situation, it is one more example of why many of us find too many aspects of the judicial system a true abomination.

Image via: AP Photo